text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: David Corn, Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman, Julia Boorstin, Ron Reagan, Michael Honda, R. Clarke Cooper, Donna Edwards, Jonathan Allen
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: To Huckabee or not to be.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington.
Leading off today: Collateral damage. George F. Will has just written that the toxic waste, the lies about President Obama being spread by people like Mike Huckabee, will wind up contaminating other Republicans who are serious about winning the party's nomination next year. His point? People like Sarah Palin and Huckabee, to name just two, are so contemptuous of the truth that the Republican nominee will become collateral damage, diminished by association. If Will is right, we can only say Republicans will deserve what they get for not putting a stop to this sewer talk.
Plus: Religious leaders on both coasts are calling on Peter King to cancel his hearings next week on the radicalization of American Muslims. They say the hearings will do nothing more than stir up anti-Muslim hatred. King says it's Muslims who are being radicalized to kill Americans. Who's right?
Also: What took so long? The Republican leadership is fighting the Obama administration's decision last week not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Acceptance of gays is growing, obviously, every day in this country. Is this really the fight the GOP wants to have?
And speaker John Boehner is coming awfully close now to saying that he's going to take on Social Security and Medicare. Can you touch that third rail in politics and survive? We'll see.
Finally, Mike Huckabee has pulled back his claim that President Obama grew up in Kenya. And then again this week, he took back a putdown of Natalie Portman. That's where it belongs, in the "Sideshow."
We start with the sleazy attack on President Obama and how it could hurt Republicans for running for president. MSNBC political analyst David Corn's a Washington bureau chief—in fact, the Washington bureau chief—definite article—of "Mother Jones" magazine. And Ron Reagan—Ron, it's great to see you!
RON REAGAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Good to see you, too, Chris.
MATTHEWS: He's a political commentator. Ron, I'm going to let you start from—you're not "Sleepless in Seattle, so here goes. Here's Mike Huckabee Monday—the week of travesty began with this—on an AM—I never go on AM radio. I'm sorry, Ron. Whoever does AM radio is probably looking for this kind of conversation these days.
MATTHEWS: Let's listen to AM radio's version of Huckabee.
MIKE HUCKABEE (R-AR), FMR GOV., HOST, "HUCKABEE": His perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British are a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather.
MATTHEWS: Wow! Thanks to Politico. Here's, by the way—you know, I got to tell you, there's a old horrible joke about a guy, and he said, Do you ever misstate something you intended to say and you got the wrong thing? The other day, I intended to say to my wife, Please pass the marmalade, but I said, You've been ruing my life.
MATTHEWS: You know, it's just—it's just incredible statement now -
I meant to say it was Indonesia when I was talking about the Mau Maus in Kenya and his father and the British and this incredible line of narrative, and then his flack goes out and says, Oh, he meant to say—no, he didn't!
REAGAN: He seemed to be questioning—
MATTHEWS: He meant to say what he said.
REAGAN: He seemed to be questioning the idea that the British empire was, in fact, an empire, that they were colonialists. You can correct me if I'm wrong, guys, but didn't the British used to call us the colonies?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I thought we were on the side of the defenders of the local land against the colonists. I don't know what—by the way, you can't even catch up with—can't even catch up with Huckabee. But he puts him back there with in Mau Mau country, with people in the country trying to defend themselves against British colonialists by killing white people.
It's great imagery if you're in this game on the worst side. I mean, it's
REAGAN: -- Boy Scouts and he was running around with the Mau Maus in Kenya.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
REAGAN: But this is a problem for the Republicans and not just Huckabee, because you've got—polls indicate you've got nearly half of the registered Republican voters who buy this kind of stuff. So how do you pander to people—
MATTHEWS: What percent, Ron?
REAGAN: -- who aren't the sharpest cutlery—we're looking at a major plurality, if not the majority. I think it's in the high 40s, maybe even up close to 50 percent.
MATTHEWS: In the R party—in the Republican Party.
REAGAN: In the Republican Party, yes.
MATTHEWS: But that's 20-some percent of the country that's open to this malarkey.
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES," MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But those are votes you need in the Republican primary. That's the issue here. A lot—
CORN: And this is the issue that George Will—
CORN: George Will (INAUDIBLE) let him speak for himself. We're allowed to—most of his column's embargoed for Sunday. Get your local papers if they cover him -- 500 do. But here's Will's column, the part we're allowed to do. Here's his take on—in his column. "Sensible Americans must be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the Republican Party. The most recent vibrator is Mike Huckabee"—who referred in a radio interview to President Obama—
"quote, 'having grown up in Kenya'"—he actually grew up in Jakarta and Honolulu, mostly Honolulu except for three years. "A spokesman for Huckabee dutifully lied, saying his employer, quote, 'simply misspoke.' Let us not mince words here." This is Will speaking. "There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon right now—Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty—so the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons."
That's George F. Will, well stated. You can't keep talking mindlessly on AM radio and not expect somebody sane to overhear you. He went into this whole claptrap narrative, David, about him being over there with the Mau Maus and listening to all this anti-British sentiment and being part of this whole landscape. And it took—he didn't have the guts to come out and say himself he was full of it. He had a flack come out and do it and said it was really talking about Indonesia.
CORN: Well, and then two days later, he went on another conservative radio show, and when the host said that Obama had anti-American feelings because of his childhood—didn't say where it happened, but because of his childhood—Huckabee agreed with him.
So he's compounding the problem. He's turning into the Charlie Sheen of the Republican Party here. It's, like—it's, like, this meltdown because he can't be a serious candidate and go on these shows with these talk show guys and then—
MATTHEWS: Do you think he's lost it?
MATTHEWS: Do you think he's lost it?
CORN: Well, I think he's—
MATTHEWS: Or is he just playing to the base?
CORN: I think he's—I think he's—
MATTHEWS: Like Ron said.
CORN: I think he's pandering, but in such a prominent way, it's going to hurt him.
CORN: And George Will is right because this is one reason I think Mitt Romney's not declaring. Would you want to be in a debate this week, if you're Mitt Romney or even Tim Pawlenty, and be asked about what Huckabee said? Your choice is either to push him away and alienate those voters, or to sort of not answer the question.
MATTHEWS: Well, the one period—
MATTHEWS: -- we'll get to it when we get to the political analysis of this guy. What he's doing is throwing out this swill, basically, right now so that he can quit the race, stay on television, make money, and then wait until the next summer of 2012, be picked up as a running mate by someone who's going to be a little more sane, like Mitt Romney, that that's the game he's playing. He knows we'll get mad at him. He knows he'll say these terrible things. He'll sort of deny he said it. But he's playing this game to the sick wing of that party.
Here's veteran Republican strategist Mark McKinnon speaking in "The Daily Beast" today. "I doubt most Americans have a clue about the Mau Mau revolution, including me, but I'm pretty sure for most folks, it sounds like something extremely foreign, vaguely socialist, anti-Christian, or at the very least, un-American. And unfortunately, whether it was averted or not, I think that Huckabee's intent was to further sow the seeds that Obama is somehow not really one of us, he's one of them."
You know, the Mau Maus—the last movie about them was something called "Safari" with Victor Mature.
MATTHEWS: I agree, it goes way back to the '50s. My grandmom took me to see it at the Chestnut Hill Theater, I remember. But that was the Mau Maus. They were, of course—to remind people who don't know that Kenyan history, they were the people that were the early revolt against British imperialism. And they were pretty tough, pretty ruthless. Jomo Kenyatta, who became the great president of Kenya, always swore he had nothing do with them. Everybody figured he had something to do with them.
But to bring all that back and claim that somehow, the experience of President Obama's paternal grandfather somehow influenced this thinking through this sort of bloodline, which we Americans really don't buy, I don't think, do we, Ron? Do we buy this blood theory—
REAGAN: No, we don't.
MATTHEWS: -- of thinking? You are a perfect example, by the way—
REAGAN: Yes!
MATTHEWS: -- of how blood just don't work, if you don't mind my saying so.
REAGAN: Oh, thank you. Thank you. This is part of a larger Republican narrative, though, and I think you're going to see it floated by even some of the more sane candidates, not Huckabee, which is this idea of Obama, as McKinnon said, as "the other." You know, Huckabee goes over the top with it, but others will try and find a subtler way to make that point and appeal to their constituents with that line of narrative.
MATTHEWS: OK. Here's the good news. Here's the good news.
MATTHEWS: We got an unemployment rate that's starting to come down. We have a president who has been—I hate to talk like Frank Sinatra, but classy. He has been really distinguished as our president. His family has been immaculate. The first lady has been wonderful. Everybody has been dignified and made us feel great as a country.
The fact that they have to go back to his African roots, that they have to go back two or three generations to slime this guy, is probably a good indicator they don't got nothing on him.
CORN: Well, I—
MATTHEWS: Isn't that something?
CORN: Well, I think—I think they're worried, to an extent. You know, the economy still is in a bad place. It's better than it was when he came into office, but it's still in a bad place and—
MATTHEWS: Well, why don't they use that?
CORN: That's what I'm saying, they're not using that. And if you look at the Republicans on the Hill, all they're talking about is not job creation, just these same old, same old tax cuts for the rich—
CORN: -- and government cuts for everybody else. Their agenda is really thin—
MATTHEWS: OK, which Republican, Ron—
CORN: -- and it's not working.
MATTHEWS: You first, then David. You're both expert at watching this. I know you're both liberals, but I want you to focus on the Republican side. Which Republican candidate who has a real chance to be our next president—because we know it's going to be a close election next year, no matter what anybody says, in the Electoral College. Which one of these five people here will have the stuff, the cojones, as Hemingway would say, to stand up and say, Enough, I'm going to triangulate against the yahoos. I don't care how many votes it costs me in Iowa. Will Daniels do it? Yes or no, either guy.
REAGAN: I think Daniels is potentially somebody who could do it, or a Jon Huntsman, maybe, if he's still—
MATTHEWS: Will say, Enough of this garbage.
CORN: Well, I—
REAGAN: Yes.
CORN: Ron, I think Huntsman has a problem because his—the beef against him is going to be that he worked for Obama.
REAGAN: Exactly.
CORN: So if he looks like he's going—
MATTHEWS: -- Haley Barbour—actually, we can skip over him.
MATTHEWS: Will Romney do it? Will Romney say, I'm a good, church-going member of the LDS church. We don't believe in racism—
CORN: I think this is Romney's challenge. Tim Pawlenty won't because he's already calling himself what, T Paw T (ph) because he's with the Tea Party?
MATTHEWS: And he's also saying, Bring back DADT.
CORN: Yes, so he won't—
CORN: -- Romney, who has stayed away from this stuff, to his credit. Now, when he gets into the thick of it, when he finally announces and he's running against Newt or Santorum and Huckabee and they're raising this, will he distance himself? I mean—
MATTHEWS: Just say, This is not about the ancestry of my opponent.
CORN: Well—
MATTHEWS: This is not about his ethnicity.
CORN: He—
MATTHEWS: This is not—he is as American—
CORN: This—
MATTHEWS: -- as me and my wife. Their family is as American as I am.
CORN: This will be—
MATTHEWS: Just say that!
CORN: This will be an important moment for him, how he handles this, because this issue isn't going away because 20 percent, if not more, of his party—
MATTHEWS: Let's give him the catechism. He is as American as I am. That's not the issue. Just say it like that. It would be sweet. And I haven't heard it yet—
REAGAN: Haven't heard it.
MATTHEWS: -- because they still want that card. They love that ethnic card! Anyway, thank you, David Corn. Thank you, Ron Reagan.
REAGAN: You bet. Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Coming up—have a nice weekend, guys.
Coming up, religious leaders around the country want Congressman Peter King to cancel next week's hearings about the—what he calls the radicalization of American Muslims. I think most American Muslims are pretty assimilated, pretty pro-American, I would think, but I guess King wants to be sure. He says radical Muslims here at home pose a security threat, but critics say the hearings will do little more than stir up anti-Muslim hatred in America. That's ahead.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: We got the new unemployment numbers out today, and the news is good for the economy and the Obama administration. Overall, the unemployment rate ticked down a bit to 8.9 percent. It's below 9 for the first time. That's the lowest it's been for nearly two years, nearly a full point from where it was just three months ago, so progress heading downward. That's always good for the soul. And the economy created 192,000 new jobs last month, in line with the economists' expectations. Well, that's a good one there, too.
President Obama's reelection prospects are tied directly—I'm telling you, and we all know it—to that number. We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Pressure's mounting for Republican Peter King in New York to cancel next week's hearing on what he calls the radicalization of the American Muslim community. It's slated for next week, as I said. Fifty faith, civil rights and human rights organizations have signed a letter to Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi just last month that said, "Singling out a group of Americans for government scrutiny based on their faith is divisive and wrong." In addition, more than 180 religious leaders in New York and California have called on King to cancel the hearings, saying they smack of a McCarthyite attack of kind of witch hunt again.
Here's Congressman King explaining the need to hold hearings on what he calls the radicalization of American Muslims. Let's listen.
REP PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: There's no other group in this country other than al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists which is recruiting. We've always had neo-Nazis. We've also had—always had environmental extremists. What makes this unique and different is this is a home-grown group of people being recruited by an enemy from overseas.
MATTHEWS: I don't get it.
Democratic Congressman Mike Honda—Michael Honda of California opposed to these hearings. He spent several many years at a Japanese internment camp when he was a child. He's now the House Democratic senior whip.
You know, you have to wonder—I like Peter King personally. We're Irish-Americans, you know? But you have to wonder, did he ever go among all the 20 or 20 million Irish-Americans looking for IRA supporters?
REP. MICHAEL HONDA (D), CALIFORNIA: No.
MATTHEWS: Ever have hearings on Irish-Americans, which guy's paying money to Noraid (ph)? Maybe they should, but it would have been a very horrific situation. They shouldn't have done it, in fact. It would have been horrendously received.
HONDA: Well, he—he has—his district's right near Ground Zero—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HONDA: -- and I think that that's where a lot of the controversy started in terms of the—you know, putting together a mosque for—the organizer wanted to have a multi-denomination place where everybody—
MATTHEWS: I know. I like that guy, by the way. I interviewed him.
HONDA: Yes.
MATTHEWS: I like him. I trust him.
HONDA: That's very American.
MATTHEWS: Well, he wants to set up a 92nd Street Y, like a Jewish Y,
sort of a community center, for Islamic people. Now, I understand, however
you may disagree. I understand how people think it's—it's too darn close, that it's close to what is really a cemetery to most Americans, 9/11. You don't agree with that?
HONDA: I don't agree with that. I think that that's—it's symbolic. And if you want to be symbolic, you bring people together in an area that was a point of attack.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
HONDA: And I think that that's—you know, that's—you know, to me, symbolism's a lot (ph).
MATTHEWS: Well, here he is, Peter King, called on Muslim leaders in an interview with "National Review" magazine. He said, quote, "It is not enough for them to say that they denounce all terrorism, that they denounce all violence. They have to be much more aggressive. I don't think they fully realize that. They worry that if they come out and highlight their opposition to Islamic terrorism, it would focus too much attention on the Muslim community, reminding people that these terrorists are Muslim, so they don't deal with it in an open way."
You know, this is a classic example—I want your thoughts on this—where you go out and give lectures to people who are totally peaceful, totally patriotic, who despise terrorism, and you lecture them. What does that accomplish?
HONDA: I don't know, but he's accused the community of not stepping up and sharing information. At the same time—he suppresses them at the same time, and it's just—
MATTHEWS: How does he do that?
HONDA: Well, when he accuses them of terrorism or being 80 percent of the mosques in the country are activists in terrorism, that's—that's kind of a suppressing kind of activity. Like the Japanese-Americans, when we were trying to socialize ourselves in this country, all the anti-Asian kinds of media and activities—it suppressed our community from being more active and outspoken.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Now, you were—I fed (ph) you the calculation. You're a little older than me. Not much. But you were 3 or 4 years old when your family was interred.
HONDA: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Interned. You were taken to Colorado from California. You were put in a camp.
HONDA: Yes. I was about 9 months old when we came in. So I think the only thing that was (INAUDIBLE) national security (ph) was part of my diapers, you know?
MATTHEWS: But you had—you were telling me when we just came in here—and I met you years ago when you first got elected out there in California—that—
HONDA: Yes.
MATTHEWS: -- you have been having dreams about it growing up, what it was like to be in those camps.
HONDA: You know, people ask me if I remember things.
And things come back to me in dreams when I was a youngster, about 7, 8. I would share these dreams with my parents during dinner. And it was as if I saw a black-and-white movie theater right at my eye level. And I would explain what was going on. My mother would look at my dad and say, that happened.
MATTHEWS: Yes. So, you remember that.
HONDA: And she thought that I was a pretty strange kid.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look here. Let's bring in MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Alter, who is also with "Newsweek."
Jonathan, it seems to me that this is going to be hell on wheels, these hearings.
JONATHAN ALTER, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTING CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
MATTHEWS: I'm talking to Mike Honda, who grew up in a very young age and experienced what the internment camps were, as a parallel to going through all the Islamic mosques in the country and basically vetting them.
ALTER: Well, you know, Congressman King has said that American Muslims are—quote—"overwhelmingly good people." So he's going to try to set a friendlier tone.
The problem is, when you have these hearings, they inevitably turn into a circus, no matter how much the chairman wants to keep things under wraps. And the question you have to ask about that is, does that then help the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to thwart plots?
And there have been a few dozen Muslim Americans arrested in the last couple of years on terrorism charges. So, there is a very, very, very small percentage of the Muslim community that needs to be watched more closely, so we won't have another 9/11.
MATTHEWS: Well, what good will the hearings do?
ALTER: But that's the point. The question is, does—do the hearings take us closer to good surveillance of them or further away?
And I would argue the answer is, those hearings take us further away from that, because they alienate the very people in the Muslim community we need to talk to the FBI, to give an early warning.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ALTER: So, they're counterproductive to the goal that the congressman is trying to advance.
MATTHEWS: I think so.
Well, here's what Congressman King said about the Islamic extremists in those mosques. Let's listen to King.
REP. PETER KING ®, NEW YORK: In 2004, I said that 80 percent of the
mosques were controlled by extremists. That was based on testimony in the
2000 from Sheik Khabbani, who was testifying at a State Department hearing. Now, I don't know today whether it could be more than 80 percent, it could be less than 80 percent.
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the question. When you want to investigate crime, you don't go out and sweep through a community and say who here can prove they're not involved in crime?
Doesn't that put the onus—and if you think, the psychology is, if you feel like you grew up in America and say you're second- or third-generation Islamic, and you always feel America maybe have—your parents seem a little bit—a little different than other parents, but you feel American, and you're getting into it 100 percent.
Then somebody comes along and says all you people are suspicious.
ALTER: Yes. Right. Right.
MATTHEWS: Doesn't that almost work in the direction of radicalizing somebody, I would think? Your thoughts?
ALTER: It could potentially radicalize them.
But, at a minimum, if you're trying to convince Muslim groups not to put up posters that say don't talk to the FBI—and there are such groups that put up those posters—if you're trying to work against that, this is not the way to do it. There are other ways of reaching out to the Muslim community to encourage more participation with law enforcement.
So, Peter King is not a bad guy. You know, he's done some good work on getting aid for first-responders after 9/11 who were being, you know, shunted aside by the Republican Congress.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ALTER: So he's not—he's not a whack job congressman. He's just not thinking logically about how to achieve his objectives here.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Honda, Congressman Honda?
HONDA: Well, the language that they use in terms of titling—in titling the hearing is pretty damn negative. It almost presupposes the conclusion of what the outcome of the hearing is going to be.
And if it's about law enforcement, how many law enforcement people have they invited to speak on behalf of their own experiences with the community? And it's about building trust.
MATTHEWS: What do you think will be the—what do you think is the predetermined outcome? What do you think the message is going to be of the King hearings?
HONDA: Well, every time they hear radicalizing and Islam, they're going to equate that with the terrorism and everything else—
MATTHEWS: The whole community.
HONDA: -- like that. And there's no exceptions.
Is he looking at radicalization or terrorism? Is this broader than terrorism? Is it the thinking and ideology within the Islamic community, Jonathan?
ALTER: Yes, look, there's a problem here. If you talk to Janet Napolitano, she will tell you that they are concerned in law enforcement about a radicalization of some very small group of elements of the American Muslim community, because they have had some arrests of Muslim Americans.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
ALTER: So, it's not like there's no issue here at all. But if you're trying to repair relations with that community, so they cooperate more, the last thing you want to do is have a showy hearing that's going to make everybody resentful.
MATTHEWS: I think you're right.
ALTER: So, he's just not thinking straight about it.
MATTHEWS: That's my bottom line. That's a well-stated statement there.
MATTHEWS: Thank you so much.
U.S. Congressman Mike Honda, thank you sir, for coming in.
HONDA: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: And Jonathan Alter of "Newsweek."
ALTER: Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Up next: Mike Huckabee strikes again. Now he's got a beef with the Academy Award-winning actor Natalie Portman. He is going after her. And he's sort of taking it back already. This guy is busy, saying it and pulling it back so fast, you can't keep track of it. But we will.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Now to the "Sideshow."
Mike Huckabee has been out this week saying that the president grew up in Kenya, as you all know by now, that he was involved somehow in the Mau Mau revolt, he hung around madrassas.
And now, like Charlie Sheen, another hero of this week, he's ranting about all sorts of things. Like, now, it's Natalie Portman being pregnant by her boyfriend. Doesn't like it. Here's the reverend.
MIKE HUCKABEE ®, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: You know, Michael, one of things that is troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, hey, look, we're having children. We're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.
But there are not really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.
MATTHEWS: Yes, right.
Well, this afternoon, Huck backtracked in a statement, calling Natalie a great actress who deserves her Oscar and he said he's happy she's marrying the baby's father.
Mike Huckabee commenting this week on all matters, from the Mau Mau Revolution to unmarried mothers who win Oscars.
Next, I have always said those Hitler references have no place in politics. Lose them. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats. It just seems to keep on happening, though. Here's Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown on the Senate floor this week.
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: As a nation, I look back in history at some of the worst governments we have ever had. Do you know that one of the first things they did, they went after the trade unions?
Hitler didn't want unions. Stalin didn't want unions. Mubarak didn't want independent unions. These—these autocrats in history don't want independent unions.
I'm not comparing what's happening to the workers in Madison or in Columbus to Hitler and Stalin, but I am saying that history teaches us that unions are a very positive force in society that creates a middle class and protects our freedom.
MATTHEWS: Let's say Hitler never married Eva Braun either, anyway, until to the end. Anyway, Senator Brown, lose it with the Hitler references. Never, ever, ever talk about him again, never. Nobody should.
On to not—comparing him with politics.
Anyway, on to Texas, where the state is considering a new immigration bill to tackle the rising immigration problem, maybe. The bill would punish anyone for hiring an alien with up to two years in prison or a $10,000 fine, anyone who does it—one exception, household help. That's right. Employers of maids and gardeners would be all exempted from the law. Got it? Now, isn't that convenient?
And as I have mentioned on HARDBALL this week, FOX News suspended Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum's contributor contracts as they consider running for president.
Well, here was Stephen Colbert and his thoughts on that.
STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE COLBERT REPORT": FOX, I think you're setting a bad precedent here, because a lot of your contributors have signaled that they might be running for president. If you suspend these guys, next, you are going to have to suspend Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, John Bolton.
Luckily, this does not affect Glenn Beck—
COLBERT: -- because, based on his show, he's looking past 2012 and running for archduke of the post-apocalyptic afterscape.
MATTHEWS: Up next: House Republicans say that if the Obama administration won't enforce and defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, they will. That's ahead.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
JULIA BOORSTIN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Julia Boorstin with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks regaining ground in the final hour, but still finishing firmly in the red, the Dow Jones industrials tumbling 88 points, the S&P 500 sinking nine, and the Nasdaq falling 14 points.
Investors shrugging off the best jobs report of the recovery, as oil prices skyrocketed on escalating unrest in the Middle East. Employers added $192,000 jobs in February, the unemployment rate falling a tenth of a point to 8.9 percent. And December and January's numbers were revised upward to show an additional 58,000 jobs were added.
But violence in Libya and protests in Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, and now eastern Saudi Arabia sent oil prices soaring. U.S. crude is up $3 today, finishing just below $105 a barrel. Those prices are keeping the transportation sector under pressure, with airlines taking the biggest hit.
Overall, a roller coaster of a week resulting in only fractional gains.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I'm really disappointed in the president and the Department of Justice and the fact that they're not going to defend a law the Congress passed overwhelmingly.
I would be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend the law. It strikes me as something that's just as raw politics as anything I have seen, knowing that a lot of people who believe in DOMA probably not—likely not to vote for him, and pandering to the other side on this issue.
MATTHEWS: Well, welcome back to HARDBALL.
That was of course House Speaker John Boehner Sunday talking to the Christian Broadcasting Network. Today, he announced that the House will take action to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court through the house of—the office of the House counsel.
In his statement, he said: "It's regrettable that the Obama administration has opened this divisive issue at a time when Americans want their leaders to focus on jobs and the challenges facing our economy. The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts, not by the president unilaterally. And this action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."
Is Speaker Boehner right to call this raw politics by the president?
The Huffington Post's Howard Fineman is an MSNBC political analyst. And R. Clarke Cooper is with—well, he is the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Gentlemen, thank you.
Howard, sometimes—and Clarke—I get the feeling that Boehner does things almost the way the queen of England has to read statements issued by the party in power.
MATTHEWS: Like, does he really want to do what he's doing?
Clarke, do you think he really wants this role he's playing right now?
Or would he like to just let this thing ride away to the sunset?
R. CLARKE COOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: It's a tough role. The speaker has a tough role.
MATTHEWS: Bringing up a fight to keep DOMA, to keep Defense of Marriage Act, when the country seems vaguely bored with the issue.
COOPER: Well, he wants to focus on the mandate that the voters sent in 2010, which was, pay attention to the budget, reduce government spending, reduce the size of government. Those are the priorities—
MATTHEWS: So why is he doing this? Why is he creating this—using this bipartisan counsel to get the counsel of the House to bring this case in court to defend the—
COOPER: Well, it's a nonpartisan—the House general counsel is a nonpartisan entity. And this is where it's going to—
MATTHEWS: It's mostly Democrats, though.
COOPER: But it's a bipartisan commission.
MATTHEWS: I know.
COOPER: And this is—
MATTHEWS: So, he's hiding a little bit from the issue?
COOPER: No, he's not hiding. He's bringing balance to it and bringing the focus back to the mandate that the voters wanted in 2010.
The speaker is trying—
MATTHEWS: So, you really are—you're not just a—you're not just a leader of the gay liberation movement. You really are the Republicans, aren't you? You really are.
MATTHEWS: Every time I keep for—I keep forgetting that you are an
COOPER: We are an R.
MATTHEWS: I know. I know. But you think he's OK on this?
COOPER: This is—this is—it's much better than where it could be. I want like to see DOMA repealed. I would love to see it repealed legislatively.
MATTHEWS: Well, why are backing, why are you defending the speaker on this, then?
COOPER: The speaker is doing the right thing for right now. This was not political courage by President Obama. This was political calculus. He threw this in the mix to try to—to stir the pot.
MATTHEWS: You pushed the cause of gay rights and same-sex marriage, all these issues. At the same time, you do this little clip of any Democrat involved --
COOPER: No. But I will tell you right now, this—this is gamesmanship on the president's part.
MATTHEWS: Is the president right not to fight the constitutionality of DOMA or wrong? Right or wrong, the president?
COOPER: Well, let me raise this.
MATTHEWS: No, no.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this.
COOPER: Why is don't ask, don't tell being fought by the Department -
MATTHEWS: Can I ask this question? Is the president right or wrong to not fight for the constitutionality of DOMA?
COOPER: He—
MATTHEWS: Right or wrong, sir?
COOPER: Right or wrong?
MATTHEWS: Answer the question.
COOPER: President Obama is abdicating his duty.
MATTHEWS: Is he right or wrong in not fighting for the constitutionality of DOMA, right or wrong? Answer the question.
COOPER: If he's not going to fight this, why is he fighting don't ask, don't tell?
MATTHEWS: There we go. This is—this is the problem with the Log Cabin guys. You're half-Republican and half-gay-liberation guys. Which is it? You can't answer the question.
COOPER: We're gays who—we're Republicans who happen to be gay.
MATTHEWS: Right. But I'm asking you politically, that's not about DOMA—it's not about the Constitution here. I'm asking you, where do you stand and whether the president was right or wrong in not fighting for the constitutionality of DOMA, right or wrong?
COOPER: Where is his position on this?
MATTHEWS: He's not doing it.
COOPER: He's not doing it.
MATTHEWS: Is that right or wrong?
COOPER: It's wrong that he's not doing it. He's taking it—
MATTHEWS: You just earned—your comment has earned a wince from my colleague. You're now trying to discern these guys, the Log Cabin Republicans believe the Republicans are always right.
COOPER: No. Hold on.
MATTHEWS: The speaker is right.
COOPER: Hold on, what the speaker did was he looked at—he looked at the terrain and he noticed that the terrain was the president was playing gamesmanship on a time of steering away focus on the economy, take away focus on the budget and to throw this hot potato in the mix, which is what he did. It was political calculus. It wasn't courage.
What would be courageous is if the president stood up and said, you know, I would like to see DOMA repealed, I support marriage equality. We're going to non-pursuit on the court cases, and, oh, by the way, we're not—we're going to suspend "don't ask, don't tell."
MATTHEWS: OK. Howard, your sense of this.
FINEMAN: All right. Well, it is true that the president didn't go all the way. Because he's just said we're not going to defend it in these particular cases, OK?
MATTHEWS: And this is the DOMA section three which says that the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.
FINEMAN: And that's the issue in cases in Connecticut—I think that's one that the White House would say prompted them to say what they said. It wasn't just politics. They had—they had a legal thing to decide.
But if you talk to gay rights activists who I guess are not Republicans, like Winnie Stachelberg, who's one of the leading gay activists in the country, she—her interpretation is that Boehner sort of took the least line of resistance here. It's interesting to hear her talk about it because her reaction—
MATTHEWS: You mean, he was acting like the hot potato, too.
FINEMAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: That you're accusing the president.
FINEMAN: Yes. Yes, because when this decision by the president not to fight for the law a couple of days ago, there was thundering silence from the Republican leadership, I think it's fair to say.
MATTHEWS: Will DOMA pass again in the Republican crowd now if they're back in again? Will they pass Defense of Marriage Act in the current Congress right now?
COOPER: I would say, no. But his is looking at—I'm obviously biased because I want to see DOMA repealed.
MATTHEWS: Right.
COOPER: I think it's an appropriate, it's an encroachment of state's rights and encroachment on individual liberty. Fellow Bush alumni, Ted Olson, who was our lead advocate on the courts on this, is arguing against DOMA in some of the cases that are—
MATTHEWS: That's why he's against the whole idea of denial—
COOPER: Correct.
MATTHEWS: Equality.
COOPER: So, we have more pro-quality or self-identified pro-quality Republicans in Congress than we did—
MATTHEWS: Let's bottom line this. It's Friday night. Where is this going to end up? It seems like the president doesn't want to defend the constitutionality of the bill. You think Congress, it would unlikely, to take the initiative to do it again right now.
So, there's a lack of heart to now—to really fight same-sex marriage in this country. It seems like it's almost catching up to—not quite, catching up to the idea of open service, it's not quite there yet, right? That's why it's murky.
FINEMAN: Those trends are related, by the way. I think we need to quote her again—says the Supreme Court is going to deal with us one way or the other. That's number one. She said what the president did she called historic—even though admittedly it didn't go as far as he could have. And from her point of view it was historic.
It's clear to me that the Republican leadership would rather stay away from this thing all together—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
FINEMAN: -- because they do want to focus on other things. And then they know as the Republican presidential campaign starts, all the Republican contenders are going to want to go out there and play to the crowd that is obsessed with this issue.
MATTHEWS: Pawlenty is already doing it.
MATTHEWS: Suburban women.
COOPER: Well, Mitch Daniels saying stay away—
MATTHEWS: Suburban women tend to be Republican because of tax considerations but on issues of social issues like this, they are very much against this gay bashing. They're very much for open service, very much for same sex. They don't like Republicans being anti-gay.
FINEMAN: The key now is that the polls show that among independent voters, it's a closely divided issue and it's not one that—
COOPER: And I think in terms of the primary GOP voters would like to stay focused on the economy.
MATTHEWS: I like the way you confuse me. Clarke, you've got a tough job. He's got to be for Republicans and he's got to be for gay rights and a party that's not exactly for gay rights.
Anyway, thank you, Howard Fineman—the look I'm getting from Howard. Have a nice weekend—Howard Fineman. R. Clarke Cooper of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Up next, House Speaker John Boehner says it's time to do the big things and tackle Social Security. Is he sticking his neck out? Is the Republican Party touching that third rail? Are they going to get electrocuted? Interesting. Or is he doing those things they're doing in the NFL and fake it to get the other side to do it.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Here's proof right now. The Republicans don't look kindly on their own when they—when they work across the aisle. Former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu is attacking Newt Gingrich for making a public service announcement with Nancy Pelosi in 2008 to fight climate change.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D), CALIFORNIA: We don't always see eye-to-eye, do we, Newt?
NEWT GINGRICH ®, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: No. But we do agree, our country must take action to address climate change.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Sununu is also blasting Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and current ambassador to China for having the, quote, "tarnish" of being in the Obama administration. Today's Republican Party, if you work with Democrats, you're out.
We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Wow, big news this morning.
In "The Wall Street Journal," in an interview with that paper, House Speaker John Boehner said the budget will include—the Republican budget coming up will include trims or cuts in the costs of entitlement programs like Social Security, he said, and Medicare. Is he serious? And if so, can any politician of either party weather the cost of going after these very popular, broad-ranging government programs.
Donna Edwards is a Democratic congresswoman from Maryland, right near Washington; and Jonathan Allen is a reporter for "Politico."
Just to get it clear, where would you stand if you were the king or queen of deciding whether to cut Social Security?
REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D), MARYLAND: Well, first, I want to get the argument straight because Social Security, be clear, doesn't have a single thing to do with our deficit problem.
MATTHEWS: You have a surplus in Social Security right now. How long will we have that?
EDWARDS: Well, we have it until 2037. I mean, Social Security is solvent until 2037.
MATTHEWS: And there's more money coming in from worker bees than retired bees.
EDWARDS: That's right. And not just that, but actually, Americans' incomes. This new generation we'll be working, my son, their income earnings are projected to be 10 percent higher than our earnings.
MATTHEWS: I'll believe it when I see it.
EDWARDS: I didn't say it.
MATTHEWS: I think it's great our kids are going to make all these new money, I think. So, basically, OK, how about Medicare? Is there any way to cut it?
EDWARDS: Well, in Medicare, you know, keep in mind what we did with the Affordable Care Act, the health care act, was actually extend the solvency of Medicare to 2029.
EDWARDS: And so—I mean, I think that we're doing the things to get us on track to make sure both of these programs—
MATTHEWS: Would you call yourself a liberal progressive?
EDWARDS: I would so, yes.
MATTHEWS: Liberal or progressive, what do you like better?
EDWARDS: You know, I'm an old liberal.
MATTHEWS: OK, old liberal. So, now we have—Jon, it's great to have you on. We have somebody who's clear on their statement. They don't want to cut these programs. They affect a lot of people. They don't think that—they'd probably like to have tax increases or tax reforms to pay for a lot of this deficit reduction.
Now, you, Jonathan, objectively, what is Boehner up here? The fact that he's going to out and done it, single, unilateral interview with "The Wall Street Journal." It's a great paper. The fact that he said to them in so many words that he's looking at cuts in Social Security. He's for them. He's going to target them. He's going to set it as a goal.
Is that, in fact, embracing it or is that just touching it sort of and hoping the president will do the real gripping of the wheel and say I'm going to do it? What's he up to here?
JONATHAN ALLEN, POLITICO: Well, Boehner and his fellow leaders have been extremely critical of the president for in his budget not doing any entitlement reform. And I think what Boehner is really saying here is they're going to do some entitlement reform. The president left them a lot of room to do a little bit and make it sound like a lot. I think he is messaging, trying to send a bold message through "The Wall Street Journal" to economic conservatives that they will do something on these entitlements.
But what we've heard from him and other Republican leaders, so far, is a lot more about health care entitlements, about Medicaid and about Medicare than Social Security—
MATTHEWS: But on that, you know that old vaudeville routine, I'm not sure how it developed, but it was Alphonse and Gaston. Who's going through the door first? You first, no you first.
Is there any chance you see the president joining Boehner and walking through a door and saying we're going to cut these programs, it's going to hurt but we'll take the heat together? Is there any chance of that happening this spring?
ALLEN: Any chance—I think it's a small chance. The president decided not to do it in his budget. They're going to have to have some big grand bargain that's going to include those things and some of the budget things this year. We've got sort of a train wreck of budget issues coming together—the fiscal '11 appropriations bills, the debt ceiling, fiscal '12 budget and the fiscal '12 appropriations bills.
And a lot of these members of Congress can't even distinguish between those things. They don't know what they are. They haven't dealt with them before. There's a lot on the plate for not only the House Republicans but for everyone.
ALLEN: And, by the way, I would like to say the congresswoman does not resemble an old liberal to me at all.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at these numbers. The NBC/"Wall Street Journal" Poll says that only 22 percent of Americans think it's necessary to cut Social Security. That's in line with your thinking. Only 18 percent say it's necessary to cut—we're looking at the numbers now -- 18 percent think it's necessary to cut Medicare. So, not only would the president be nervy to do something in Medicare and Social Security, but it would be completely off base with the public, right?
EDWARDS: Well, it's unnecessary. He'll be completely off base. I mean, if we want to talk about something, Social Security, let's look at the income threshold. Why is it $106,000, why not $200,000 and extend the life of Social Security forever.
MATTHEWS: Well, because it makes it more of a redistributive program if you did it.
EDWARDS: Except that all those people between $106,000 and $200,000, you're not capturing the same folks and you really do contribute to the extension and lifetime solvency of Social Security. And then you don't have to do things like put caps on cost of living increases and increase the retirement age. That's a progressive—
MATTHEWS: -- increase the benefits of those people who made that money.
EDWARDS: No, but I think the—I mean, the benefits will be sound.
We'll still be able to pay out at 90 percent by doing that.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Jon, about how about it's going to go? The American people keep saying they want something done about the deficit. They want something done about the debt. And now when you pull them, they say don't cut Social Security, don't cut Medicare.
And then in the latest polling we've done says don't go after public employees really. I mean, you have given the co-pay and things like that, but don't take away their rights to negotiate and things like that, which down the road will cost money to the states. Do you think the public if we have a plebiscite right now, a national vote to cut the deficit, what would the public do if they had it their way?
ALLEN: Well, it depends entirely on what's in it. I mean, the problem—the reason we have a $14 trillion deficit is that people don't want to be taxed and they don't want to cut spending. And the problem is that we—that leaves you with not enough revenue to pay for your services. And we're seeing that all come together, and we're not getting courage from politicians yet.
MATTHEWS: You've said it well and I can't say it better. The people do not really want to deal with reality. The politicians have to bite the bullet. Thank you.
EDWARDS: I'm ready to bite. Thanks.
MATTHEWS: Congresswoman Donna Edwards, congresswoman from Maryland, and Jonathan Allen.
When we return, "Let Me Finish" with the real sinister reason why Mike Huckabee is talking about President Obama and the Mau Maus. It's dark stuff.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: "Let Me Finish" tonight, and this week, with a challenge to the Republican Party.
Here's how it goes: Don't do what Huckabee did this week, skip the talk about the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s, about the influence of his African father or grandfather, what influence they might have on the president and make this campaign about how this president has performed as president. The policies he's advanced and how they've performed.
Our country has a lot to talk about between now and November 2012. Don't waste time talking about a country, Kenya, Barack Obama never lived in, a distant father he hardly ever met, or a grandfather he never met.
For one reason, I didn't think of it, talk about something as far away and as exotic as the Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s seems a strange way to address the 2012 American presidential campaign, more important that you're getting economic and other challenges facing the country right now.
It's like the general in Dr. Strangelove talking about precious bodily fluids. Or George F. Will puts in a column for this weekend, "Sensible Americans must be detecting vibrations of weirdness in what Huckabee was saying."
Vibrations of weirdness—of course, looking it from the conservative of George Will, you can spot something dirtier in this tying of the president to a revolt against white rule in East Africa back 60 years ago.
The image of black men killing white people in a political struggle that goes right to the ideological, cultural and ethnic nervous system of those people who might just be ready to hear just the kind of weirdly exotic nonsense ole Huckabee got caught peddling on the A.M. dial early this week—something ordered from the Dark Continent, for the late night fear mongering of a pol from Arkansas who knows how to hit the sweet spot of American racial nervousness. You know, the old Nat Turner business of slaves breaking loose and killing their owners.
This is precisely dead-on what Huckabee did this week, talking up the Mau Maus and Obama's dad and grandpop—sell those kind of black and white violence, or black against white violence sells in the dark, nervous night of the soul.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
More politics ahead with Cenk Uygur.
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
A couple of weeks ago, the inevitable was announced. According to Canalys, a leading mobile market research firm, in Q4 2010 Android has overtaken Symbian as the world's most-pervasive smartphone platform. According to Canalys, 33.4 Million Android phones were shipped by Google licensees in the quarter – more than double the iPhones or BlackBerries.
While this has been touted with much fanfare, some seemingly contradictory information is "common knowledge" to mobile application developers. It is still much easier to get traction and especially monetize iPhone apps than Android apps. How come? With such momentum for Android, you'd expect it to be at least as successful as iPhone.
The answer, which I've been proclaiming for awhile now, can be summed up this way – "Android is the new Symbian". Now I'm sure some Googlers will resent this, so maybe a different way to put it is – "Android is the new MS-DOS".
What I mean by this are really two things. First, that Google's strategy with Android is to reach as far and as wide as it can. That's one of the reasons it is free to licensees, open-source etc. Google intends to eventually leverage Android by tying it to its other assets and ultimately use advertising to monetize it. This means you can build cheap Android phones and target the mid-market, not just the high-end as other smartphones have (in truth, Android hardware requirements are still relatively high, but Moore's law is taking care of that cost). Furthermore the abundance of licensees means that a price war is evident – and indeed we now see free (subsidized) Android phones on many operators portfolios. So – Android is becoming the dominant player in the mid-market, with high-end presence too, and ultimately low-cost aspirations. This is exactly the path Symbian took in 2004 – 2008, becoming the world's leading smartphone platform by volume – but dwindling in consumers' eyes to a point where it drives low-margin devices, with BlackBerries (initially) and iPhones (later) commanding the high-end, high-margin sector. In 2008, a Nokia executive told me personally that Nokia learned the hard way that the top 10% of the handset market commands 50% of the margin. Think about it – if one company takes over the top 10%, it can be worth as much of all the other companies combined (who sell in aggregate 9 times as much as it does). Right? So this is the second point – a smartphone platform that is focused on mass is doomed to become a low-margin platform. Google doesn't mind. But it's licensees are doomed to fighting over scraps.
Now this is a tall order claim, that I couldn't really publish before, until I ran into this analysis by Asymco's Horace Dediu:
Which brought to mind Noam Wasserman's "Founder's Dilemma" metaphor about Rich vs. King. Apple's startegy with the iOS devices, just like with the Mac before, is to aim for the top 10-30% of the market. The people who can spend, the people who care deeply about the product they are buying and using. Google's strategy is more like carpet-bombing. If we can get to 80% of the people, we'll surely find a way to monetize that.
So is this just an interesting business case? Or Valley gossip?.
If you're involved in this business in any way – you might be an app developer, a marketer wanting to reach mobile device users through mobile ads or a mobile app / website etc., or a service provider who is pushed to provide a service to his customers through their phones, this is critical info. Cause it means that you are going to reach a different demographic and psychographic when you target the different platform. In the Apple case, your demographic will be skewed towards high-income, users may be more engaged with the product, and there may be more willingness to pay. On the Android platform you will eventually reach more people, but engagement and purchasing intent will be different. And your adoption ratio (compared to the total available Android market) will be different, as many of these users are much less enthusiastic about their phones. Yes – they bought a smartphone, but maybe because "everyone else is getting one" or because "it was free, so why not". So choose your audience wisely, and plan your marketing moves with consideration for its composition.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Main Page
Welcome to the Burning Wheel Wiki
A wiki for the Burning Wheel Roleplaying System.
The Burning Wheel is a fantasy roleplaying game in the tradition of Dungeons and Dragons. You gather together with your friends, sit around the kitchen table with dice, pencils, paper and books and play out fantastic stories.
Getting Started
To use the wiki, you first need to:
- Create a login. Use the links at the top right to register and login. If you're a regular on the BW forum, Nerd NYC, RPG.net or the Forge, you're encouraged to use the same login.
- Edit your User Page. Once you've logged in, you'll see a link to your user page in the top right. Edit that page first to tell everyone a bit about yourself. This is important. Do not dick with the wiki before you have introduced yourself. It is rude.
- Get Numbered. If you own one of the numbered editions of BW:R, BW:Classic or MonBu, record which number and their current location, on the Burning By Numbers pages, and make Luke happy!
- Enjoy! Poke around a bit. Add a Lifepath, or a Character. Detail a campaign. The BW forum is still the best place for questions and chat, but don't miss the FAQs and Errata here.
The Site FAQ has useful info for first-time Wiki users about how to create pages.
What This Wiki is For
This place is for you, the human fuel of the Burning Wheel.
Over the last few years a lot of great ideas have percolated from your games through the forum and out into... well, they just got stuck on the forum, and ended up buried under endless posts. Now you have a shiny new place to put the cherished Lifepaths you hammered out so lovingly, the cruel and unusual Spells you distilled from the tortured ether, the Campaigns of epic devastation and the Characters that wrought great change in the worlds they strode.
We are also taking the best of threads about BITs, bangs, campaign creation and running games in general, and converting them from threads to articles in the Fevered Circle. Feel free to help out with that process. This is a collaborative space for us all to feed the flames of each others' passion. Almost every page (with some administrative exceptions, like this one) is fully editable by all and sundry. Feel free to be vocal on the Site Suggestions page. All we ask is that you say who you are by loggin in, and burn!


text:
Brite Wires are specially formulated to give your guitar a crisp attack, with the nickel plating adding warmth to the overall tone. These strings feature Gibson's Swedish steel "hex" core for added tuning stability. Brite Wires tune up fast, and hold their tone longer. No matter what style of music you play, you'll hear why Brite Wires are the choice of professionals world-wide!
Les Paul, Chet Atkins, John Lennon, B. B. King, Ace Frehley, Dickey Betts, Earl Scruggs, Sam Bush and Bill Monroe... all pioneers of their instruments. And all of them play Gibson Strings. Because they recognize that Gibson manufactures the finest strings for virtually any playing style, using the highest quality alloys. We pay close attention to every detail of manufacturing, so that the strings we make will satisfy the most demanding players.
All legendary series strings feature the distinctive silk wrap at the ball end helps to eliminate any undue wear and harmonics. Whether it's Blues, Rock, Jazz or Country, you won't find better strings for your musical needs. If you want to use the strings that the professionals use, then Gibson Strings are the choice for you!
WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm - www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.
Gibson Brite Wires Electric Guitar String Specifications
Individual Gauges


text:
Sri Lanka has many unexpected sights, but few are as surreal as early morning in Haputale. As dawn breaks, the mists that blanket the town for much of the year slowly dissipate, revealing the huddled shapes of dark-skinned Tamils, insulated against the cold in woolly hats and padded jackets, hawking great bundles of English vegetables – radishes, swedes, cabbages and marrows – while the workaday Sri Lankan town slowly comes to life in the background, with its hooting buses and cluttered bazaars.
As the mists clear and the sun rises, the tangled ridges of the island's hill country come slowly into view to the north, while to the south the land falls dramatically away to the lowlands below, with the far-off view of the coast and its sweltering Indian Ocean beaches faintly visible in the distance. As an image of Sri Lanka's unexpected juxtapositions, Haputale has few peers, and to stand shivering on a hilltop within a few degrees of the equator, watching a scene reminiscent of an English market town crazily displaced in time and space, is to understand something of the cultural and physical contradictions of this fascinatingly diverse island.
The contradictions continue in the countryside beyond Haputale, as the road twists and turns up into the sprawling British-era plantations of the Dambatenne Tea Estate, whose antiquated factory is filled with the ingenious Victorian mechanical contraptions which are still used to process the leaves brought in from the surrounding estates. For the British visitor particularly, there is always the faint, strange nostalgia of seeing the legacy of one's great-great-grandparents preserved in a distant and exotic tropical island. But there is also the subversive awareness that the hillsides of Haputale, once colonized by the British, have now reached out and quietly conquered distant parts of the world in their turn, filling the teabags and chai shops of countries as varied as England, Iran and India, with a taste that is purely and uniquely Sri Lankan.
Haputale can be reached by train from Colombo (9hr) and Kandy (5hr 30min). Accommodation is limited to a handful of guesthouses: try the excellent Amarasinghe Guest House ( +91 (0) 57 2268175).
For hundreds more ultimate travel experiences, get Rough Guides' Make The Most Of Your Time On Earth


text:
TO UNDERSTAND just how close the relationship between the O'Farrell government and the balance-of-power parties has become, look no further than the final parliamentary speech of the year by the Roads Minister, Duncan Gay.
''I thank all honourable members … On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party, who make up our team in the House, I wish you all the best for Christmas.''
Yes, you read correctly - a senior government minister who counts the Shooters and Fred Nile's Christian Democrats as ''part of the team''.
The Shooters cop a lot of flak for pursuing their gun-loving agenda.
But you cannot blame them for the way they operate.
They are an unashamed single-issue outfit. By a quirk of the Westminster system, they just happen to have been landed with the balance of power in Parliament and hence the opportunity to deliver for that constituency.
The more surprising aspect of their growing clout is just how accommodating the government has been to them.
Not even Robert Brown and Robert Borsak, the Shooters MPs, could have believed that two years after the election, when they pledged to respect the mandate Barry O'Farrell had been handed by the electorate, they would have achieved so many things on their wish list.
Hunting in national parks and a resumption of duck shooting top that list but as Fairfax Media reported last week, they have also been instrumental in shaping the government's new firearms laws and watering down its plan to restrict the sale of ammunition.
What goes largely unremarked is that much of the Shooters' agenda is exactly the same agenda as O'Farrell's Coalition partners, the Nationals.
The Nats were instrumental in breathing life into the firearms consultative committee that has done its best to stymie the police on tightening gun controls and succeeded in sparing rifle and shotgun owners (read farmers) from the ammunition law.
In Parliament, Gay is the government's senior upper house negotiator with the Shooters and Nile.
He is passionately and vociferously anti-Green and has been saying publicly since 1995 that hunters should be allowed back into national parks.
His style has alienated large sections of the Liberal Party.
A Liberal MP told me: ''The Shooters call the shots with Duncan Gay - who delivers the Nationals party room, which delivers the cabinet and that locks in the whole party room. Duncan has been the tail wagging the dog.''
It is largely overlooked that federal Labor's minor resurrection in the polls came after it went to war with the Greens - once considered ''part of the team''.
At some point, O'Farrell's own party - but more likely the public - will demand he take a tougher line with the Shooters.
Heath Aston is the environment, energy and corporate correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age


text:
This is a film documenting the opening of St. Margaret's Hall in 1954 at the Ripon Training College for Girls.
This film documents the laying of the foundation stone of St. Margaret's Hall at Ripon Training College. The stone was laid by the Princess Royal in 1950.
This film demonstrates how young children learn through discovery. It is illustrated by shots from the classroom filmed in a school 6 miles from Ripon. The voice is descriptive and positive in its style.
This film was taken at Ripon Training College, a women's teaching college, in the mid 1950s. The film includes footage of pupils as well as staff and documents some of the activities that take place during a typical school day including art and physical education classes.
This film was shot by Mr Frank Mottershaw of the Sheffield Photo Co. Ltd. The copy presently held appears to have been reworked with the title "Now a Surprise for the Prince" in 1933. Footage includes the arrival of the Royal Train in Sheffield, the progress of the Royal carriage through Sheffield city centre, an address by the King at the University, including views of the Firth Court quadrangle, and the presentation of new colours to the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry in Weston Park.
This good quality film is a document of Aysgarth School's sporting year in 1953. Located in North Yorkshire, Aysgarth School is one of the leading prep schools in the UK. The film features well-shot footage of the sporting events throughout the year including cricket, rugby, and football. Also included are some of the boys' leisure time actives during the winter.
This film features the Silsden Modern School followed by family days out in the Yorkshire Dales.
This is a film from the Noel Beardsell Collection of Peter, his son, at school. The film includes footage of football and cricket matches between students and the teachers as well as a father son match.
In 1963 Ripon Training College celebrated its centenary year. This film documents some of those celebrations including the opening of new college buildings and a performance put on by the students.
This is a film from the Noel Beardsell Collection of his son's (Peter) school, St Anselm's, Bakewell. It features Michaelmas Term 1938, with sporting events including athletics, boxing, and cricket.
This is a film which tells how the monetary system developed from the earliest times of barter to the complexities of modern banking. It explains the origin and development of coins, cheques, and banking houses and the part they play in the world today.
This film is a compilation of local events around the town of Scissett during the 1930s. Included are garden parities, 1937 Coronation celebrations, swimming and diving, and an excursion by the Dearne Valley Wheelers to Stamford Bridge.
Mady by Lucy Fairbank, this is a film which captures a Linthwaite Council School trip to the British Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. It starts early in the morning as they get on the train, follows them throughout the day, and accompanies them on the journey back to Slaithwaite.
This is an Eastman Teaching Film [formed by Kodak] featuring the life and history of the green frog showing the hatching of the eggs, and the growth of the tadpoles. This is followed by the life history and structure of the toad. The last part of the film deals with the salamander.
This is an Eastman Teaching Film [formed by Kodak] featuring several birds of prey, including the marsh hawk, owls, black vultures and bald eagles, showing their habitat, breeding and feeding habits and their physiognomy.
On June 18th, 1942, a Founder's Day ceremony took place at Beverley Minster. It was attended by the Lord Mayor, members of the clergy, army cadets and scouts. Members of the local community were also in attendance. The film was made by Ernest Symmons who owned the Beverley Playhouse Cinema. He filmed local events for newsreels which he would show before a main feature.
This is a film by Charles Chislett of events at a sports day at his son's school in Broughton.
This film by Charles Chislett records the events of an open day at his daughter's school, Harrogate College.
This is the second part of a documentary film of the London University College of Divinity at Ford Manor, Lingfield. It was made by Charles Chislett and commissioned by the Church Pastoral Aid Society. It shows the life, work and ethos of the College.
This is a film by Charles Chislett of a children's Sunday school procession in Rotherham. The procession features several local Sunday schools.
This is a film of Kathy Cole and her family visiting St Katherine's Teacher Training College in Liverpool which Kathy attended. A short section at the end of the film features a holiday in France.
This film was made as a promotional film for Leeds University and highlights the wide range of subject areas potential students can choose to study, the facilities the university provides, and aspects of student's social life including student halls and the University Union. The film also includes interviews with many of the University's current students.
Made by the University of Leeds, this is a promotional film that explores both campus and the city, specifically to aid sixth formers make a decision about university.
Produced by the Film Unit and Television Service at Leeds University, this film documents four archaeological dig sites in York. Work on these sites took place during the summer of 1973 and yielded a number of historic findings.
This film is part of the Charles Chislett Collection, although he is not credited on the film. Commissioned by the Church Pastoral Aid Society, the film aims to win recruits into the clergy. It traces the path of a new recruit from college through to his ordination and after.


text:
For the second time in a week, President Obama has postponed a planned trip to Indonesia and Australia so he can rally last minute support for a crucial vote on health care reform.
That bit of news didn't make many headlines, but became an active topic of robust debate among pundits who pondered what the move implies.
- The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan was scathing, calling the delay "embarrassing to our country." "How bush league, how undisciplined, how kid's stuff," she chided. "What an air of chaos this signals to the world." Then she sinks her teeth into the stated reason for the delay, health care reform. "I wonder at what point the administration will realize it wasn't worth it—worth the discord, worth the diminution in popularity and prestige, worth the deepening of the great divide," she writes.
- Ben Smith, writing for Politico.com, sees no weakness in the move to delay the trip. He thinks it shows "tremendous confidence." "The decision to cancel his trip may look like a sign of urgency but it's also, in the language of Washington, a sign of tremendous confidence: You don't set the President of the United States up to experience humiliation in person," he writes. "It's being taken right now by people on both sides of the fight as the clearest sign yet that Nancy Pelosi has the votes."
- Sky News' Greg Milam thinks it behooves Obama to stay in Washington for the vote -- a vote that is being watched around the world. "Aside from the domestic politics of healthcare, there is a very big international element to it for him. If Obama can't 'win' on his pet project at home, what possible hope is there of getting peace in the Middle East? Or any of the other international ambitions he has?" Milam writes. "That is what is being whispered in the corridors of Washington and maybe other capitals too. And when that is at stake, a visit to his childhood home in Indonesia and an address to the Australian parliament HAS to take a back seat."
- At The Corner, a conservative blog, Kathryn Jean Lopez suggests the trip was postponed as a preemptive move designed to provide a convenient cover should health reform fail. "This could be more perception-is-reality staging," she writes. "And if the White House loses, at least the president can say he set everything else aside to try to make it happen."
- Speaking to Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy, Patrick Cronin, senior advisor & senior director of the Asia program at the Center for a New American Security explained that "during this midterm election year, the President simply could not afford to be up in the air when health care reform legislation was winding its way to a final vote in Congress. It is a reminder how important domestic politics remain relative to the conduct of foreign affairs."


text:
We mentioned it briefly when the report about the potential Farscape movie, but screenwriter Justin Monjo is also working adapting George C. Chesbro's novels The Beasts Of Valhalla into a scifi series for HBO, with the lead role written specifically for Dinklage, and now we have more details.
The books are about Dr. Robert Fredrickson, also known as "Mongo the Magnificent." He received that nickname during his younger days as a circus acrobat, but he's now a professor of criminology and a private eye, investigating cases that often border on the supernatural. For instance, Empire says the book An Affair of Sorcerers is about"New York cults of warlocks and tarot readers." Monjo calls the series "grounded scifi," and obviously wants Dinklage to star.
Just for the record, this does not mean your beloved Tyrion will be dying anytime soon in Game of Thrones, at least as far as we know of. I sincerely doubt HBO would take the star of their massively successful show to star in an all new project; more likely he's filming The Beasts of Valhalla when he's not shooting Thrones, which he'd do as opposed to starring in movies like X-Men: Days of Future Past. Or maybe Valhalla will be a more limited series. Either way, I guarantee no one wants this new show to interfere with Game of Thrones. the only way Tyrion is leaving is if Dinklage gets bored or by George R.R. Martin's pen.


text:
Restoration Books and Gifts
Online Shopping
Featured Shopping
- Just Released
- Sale Bestsellers
- Bargains
- Baby Gifts
- Birthday
- Back To School
- Bereavement & Memorial
- Bible Study & Small Group
- Bulk Discounts on Books & Bibles
- Christian Book Award Winners
- Dove Awards Nominees
- First Communion & Confirmation
- Gifts for Her
- Gifts for Him
- Greeting Cards
- LifeWay Resources
- Ministry Appreciation
- New & Bestselling Fiction
- Resources for Love & Hope
- VeggieTales
- Wedding & Marriage
Spiritual Helps
Inside Scoop
Product Description
When conflict, rebellion, and resentment overwhelm their family, Charlie and Alice are forced to rethink their parenting strategy. In the process, they realize how critical intentionality and focus are when shaping and molding young lives. FamilyLife's first feature film explores the challenges and joys that come with raising children. Like Arrows casts a powerful vision for parents, reminding us that nothing is more important for any family than to have God and His Word directing our lives. Executive produced by Alex and Stephen Kendrick, and FamilyLife's Dennis and Barbara Rainey and Bob Lepine, the film is part of a significant new parenting initiative featuring FamilyLife's Art of Parenting, which includes an eight-session small group series and a free online video series.
More Product Information
- Publisher: Provident Distribution
- Release Date: February 5, 2019
- Language: English
- Binding: DVD
- Height: 0.60 inches
- Width: 5.40 inches
- Length: 7.60 inches
- Weight: 0.15 pounds


text:
A long time ago in a mind-set far away, I spent a lunch with friends trying to figure out what we'd do if we could reprogram our cellphones. Our ideas were, in retrospect, lame. Maybe we would change the font on the dialer or come up with a screensaver animation. Wouldn't it be cool if we could get flying toasters running on the screen of our cellphone?
The iPhone was still several years away when we came up with those ideas. The millions of ways people would be reprogramming smartphones just a few short years later was beyond our comprehension. The App Store and the effort of tens of thousands of programmers changed that.
[ Beware the 7 myths of programming, and verse yourself in the 10 hard truths developers must accept. | Test your smarts with our programming IQ tests: Round 1 and round 2 and "Hello, world": Programming languages quiz. | Learn how to work smarter, not harder with InfoWorld's roundup of the tips and trends programmers need to know in the Developers' Survival Guide. | Keep up on key application development insights with the Developer World newsletter. ]
The smartphone has proven that a marketplace for delivering code can appear seemingly out of nowhere, and developers would have another choice for showcasing their wares. It's not that the App Store was new -- you could develop for Nokia, Windows Mobile, and Java phones long before it came along. But Apple eased the process and provided enough features that made it worthwhile for developers to start creating.
So when we say that some day in the possible near future you may be targeting your apps at users' shirt pockets, not what they put in them, you may think it's time for the straitjackets. But all it takes is a market. The technology is already there -- sort of.
To help you get a jump on these promising platforms, we did a little digging in what might seem to be unlikely places. In many cases, raw APIs are already well-established, ready for apps to exploit them. Scratch the surface, and you'll get an idea of the potential of porting your wares beyond the smartphone/PC paradigm. You can bet the manufacturers of these products are interested in establishing their own app ecology. And as we've seen with both the PC and smartphone, the first to arrive is often the one whose app gets the most sales.
Emerging development platform No. 1: Your car
The computers buried in your car are better platforms for developing software than your cellphone. While car batteries do run down and cars do run out of gas, they're still more reliable sources of electricity than that tiny battery in your smartphone. The dashboard is already engineered to be at the driver's fingertips, and much of the car is already accepting digital commands through the OBD-II (On-Board Diagnostics) interface built into all new cars. Though you can forget your smartphone when you go on a road trip, you can't forget your car. Automobiles are made for apps, and their manufacturers know it.
Safety comes into play when developing apps for cars, and this is among car builders' greatest detractions in opening up their platforms. While people can manage to change radio stations while driving, changing a CD isn't nearly as safe. Plus, some argue, even the best-designed hands-free interfaces can't solve the cognitive limitations of the human brain. The driver's brain should put driving first; even talking on a hands-free phone can be suspect.
That's just the surface. Computer programmers aren't known for building crash-free products, and in the auto business, the word "crash" has much more ominous overtones. It's one thing to let the curious programmer monkey around with the OBD-II interface to suck down statistics about the combustion efficiency of the engine, but what if that same programmer stumbles onto a switch that changes an important setting irrevocably? Curiosity may not always kill the cat, but it only takes a few high-profile mistakes to sully the platform.
That may be why Ford is moving slowly with opening up its Sync platform for developers. You can download apps for interacting with Twitter (OpenBeak) or Pandora, but you won't find thousands of choices. Most of the few on hand revolve around the radio, and the company is introducing Roximity, an app might have been named by Scooby-Doo but is actually used for identifying location-dependent daily deals.
General Motors is opening up an API for its OnStar service, a wireless tool that can track your car, unlock it, and even start it remotely. There's already an iPhone app, RemoteLink, and all this power could be yours if you're accepted into the program. Just write to firstname.lastname@example.com. The most commonly cited application is RelayRides.com, a company that helps you rent out your car when you're not using it.
This platform will expand, as car manufacturers become more confident and users become more welcoming. It doesn't hurt that a number of robot-driven cars are appearing, leaving the humans in the vehicle free to monkey around with the latest apps.
Emerging development platform No. 2: Your television
The Internet may rule the world during the day when people are connected to laptops, but it fades when people retire to the living room. Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu are making inroads, but they're still just showing unadorned video. We're a long way from a compellingly interactive item.
The most ambitious incursion of developers into the living room may be along a path paved by Google, which has had only limited success pushing its Google TV box to people on couches. Logitech and Sony manufacture them, and the API offers several avenues to get your code in front of people's eyes.
The simplest way to the TV may be to write a Web app. The TV's browser is a relatively new version of Linux Chrome, the WebKit browser that also handles Flash 10.1 content. There are small changes, and you can detect them by looking at the UserAgent string. Geolocation, for instance, isn't available.
If your website works well on Chrome, it can work well on the TV. The main challenge is dealing with the size of the screen and the UI. While many modern televisions show 1080p signals, with 1,080 lines of pixels, not many eyes can make out the small differences. You can't pack text with the same density as you can on a monitor that sits 20-some inches from a face.
Google is not limiting itself to HTML5 applications. Android developers will be able to target the living room in the future by including a separate layout. Google suggests targeting "large" tablets because the "apparent size of the Google TV screen turns out to be only slightly different from a mobile phone's screen."
There are other opportunities. XBMC is a great, open source distribution meant to turn a PC into a television command center. Its core is written in C++, but many of the add-on scripts are written in Python. Perhaps the easiest way to develop content is to create a website that delivers the content in a format that's easy for XBMC to scrape.
Other TVs offer simpler options. For example, Samsung has an API that accepts HTML5 content. It's like building a Web page, but on a bigger screen for someone who is farther away. It's available on some TVs and Blu-ray players. Yahoo has a similar item, complete with a widget marketplace where people can buy your wares.
Not all platforms are as open. Apple TV, for instance, is willing to accept encrypted content that mirrors your iPad screen via AirPlay. It's not the same as writing your own code, but maybe someday, Apple will open up a TV App Store.
Emerging development platform No. 3: Your clothing
It may be made of cloth today, but there's no reason why your garments can't be one of the next great development platforms. We take our clothes everywhere, and electronics are now small enough to be sewn in without being noticeable.
There are already early experiments in garment hacking. Scott eVests and jackets are prized because they were designed to hide wires. You can put your iPod in a pocket, and the wires carrying your earbuds are threaded through channels so that they pop out of the cloth near your ears. They're not constantly getting tangled or misplaced -- unless you forget where you left your jacket.
One jacket from Hammacher Schlemer has a "five-button control system woven into the outer sleeve" so that you can change tracks without taking off your gloves or removing your iPod from your pocket. The buttons lock up after a few seconds to prevent an errant bump from shifting items.
The simplest way to experiment may be with one of the Anduino chips embraced by the Maker community. The LilyPad chip set is already designed to be sewn into clothes; just add LEDs and the right software.
The first adopters may be people who want to program their clothes to change color or patterns to music, mood, weather, or, say, a command sent by the advertising company that purchased the space on your sweatshirt. These apps will be able to communicate with people near us, and they'll enable a new twist to the fashion industry, with artists being able to upload new patterns and wearers able to swap them. People wouldn't ask where you bought that shirt; they would just download the pattern from their friend at that moment. The friend might even get a commission.
That's just cosmetic. Our clothes are always with us, so they may make a better place to put our electronic wallet than in our cellphones. Apps could follow our schedule and zap us if we forget an important taks, like taking our medicine. We may not feel the rumble from a cellphone, but our clothes are much closer.
Emerging development platform No. 4: The electrical grid
In much of the Western world, electricity is so stable that it's boring: Plug your device into the wall and it works. A month later you get a bill, and after you pay it -- as they say in the country music business -- the circuit remains unbroken.
But there's no reason why we can't enjoy a much richer, more sophisticated electrical grid with flexible pricing, self-healing circuits, and an app market full of opportunities. Filtrete, for instance, offers a programmable thermostat that is Wi-Fi-enabled and ready for remote access.
Many appliances are already integrated. The X10 standard has been widely used for home automation for some time, and libraries for languages like Java are common. Some controllers, such as Insteon, have built-in Web servers that let you interact with devices by POSTing data to the URLs.
There are more complex APIs. The ZigBee standard is growing increasingly common because it offers a more elaborate, energy-savvy API for making decisions about energy use.
Some areas of the world are already experimenting with flexible meters that charge different amounts when electricity is cheaper and when it is more expensive. In the future, your refrigerator may come with an app that watches this metric and cools down the freezer when the power is as cheap as possible. Your air conditioner, furnace, oven, and home Hadoop cluster may do the same.
Changing the price for the electricity is just the beginning. There's no reason why the home electrical grid can't have a fair amount of intelligence inside it. Instead of dumb outlets, we can have nodes that watch the flow of electricity through the outlets. If a wire shorts out or a kid chews through a cable, the smart outlets will be able to shut down the instant surge in power.
Emerging development platform No. 5: Retail
In many ways, the computing world has already split into a taxonomy of acronyms for use by venture capitalists. The B2B world helps businesses communicate with each other, the C2C helps consumers talk with each other, and the B2C helps the B sell to the C.
The app world should also split along these lines on the smartphones; when the software finds a larger, more prominent platform, the apps will only get more interesting and, in some cases, more annoying.
The movie "Minority Report" gave us a glimpse of digital advertisements that adjust themselves as people walk by. Some companies are building smart billboards that use cameras to guess the age or gender of pedestrians, and others use Microsoft's Kinect platform to let people interact with the screen. A company called After-Mouse married the Kinect with Windows API to build a retail platform. The Kinect's infrared sensors work through many forms of glass, making it possible to set up the displays behind shop windows. They interact even when the store is closed, a feature that might be used to take orders.
The devices don't need to be limited to advertisements. One simple application can help guide humans to what they want to buy. Already some warehouses have LEDs that flash to guide the humans packing orders. A store can have a similar system that interacts with any app to help people find products without searching and searching. Think of how much easier it could be to shop at Costco.
It's important to recognize that the retail API does not need to interact with the human. Cellphones constantly broadcast their ID numbers in the clear, and some stores track their customers to help plan store layouts. A savvy API might simply detect and identify the human from the cellphone signals, then reconfigure the store experience.
This retail ecology will begin to flourish when there's a good, open standard that makes it simpler for companies to be certain that their interactive display software will appear correctly in the stores, malls, and bus stops.
This story, "Beyond iPhone and Android: 5 hot new platforms for developers" was originally published by InfoWorld.


text:
For developers and for newer people ima go through the badges to show goods and/or bads for each one.
Strength badges
Heartbomb. Very good for bigginers deals 100 damage when u die to near by enemys.
First strike. Gives u an extra 100 damage when somone just spawns. Good but u have to be the one that hits them first or its usless.
Fire finish. Great for teamfights if u kill somone a zone can deal up to 50 damage to any enemy who stands in it for 5 seconds
Detection. See nexi ninjette or rook in stealth its ok situatina tho
Respawn. Wrong name for what it does. 25 attackspeed when u kill somone its ok i guess.
Energy shield. Idk who would ever use this.
Gassy. Would be good but fights only last 5 secons so u only deal 20 damage for this.
Ranger. Longer auto attacks. Good if u go that route
Cleanser/refresher. Good if you are goin into buffs and debuffs.
Explosive. Extra aoe auto attack damage
Rattlesnake. Cant tell if its good or bad. I think its 10 damage but it says -10
Crusher. Think best badge right now since most people get alot or resistance.
Machinegun. Good if u can get 10 autos off without dying.
Witchcraft. Dem debuffs.
Electrifying. Great if u have aoes and can deal 200 damage.
Accelerator. If u can get 5 auto attacks gain movment speed. Not really worth
Critical power. Definantly great goin into an auto attack crit build.
Graveyard/hardlearner good if u die alot.
First defence. long as u are at full health 10% extra damage resist.soon as u r hit its usless.
Fortitude. Great for begginers. Take damage gain resist. Dont know if it stacks but good.
Shield up. Get debuffed gain resist its ok.
Efficient. Kill and get energy decent but i think the return could go up a lil
Flak jacket. If u vs ranged champs go for it.
Vitality/boost. The return is just to low to worry about. Bad badge even on a max attackspeed nexi.
Stonewall. More spells you use the beter if u cant spam dont worry about this one.
Consuction. If you vs people that do elemental damage u can get good energy back.
Bruiser. If u like buffing get this one.
Heavy suit. If u get autod u get resistance. Its good.
Debuff protection. If u hate getting debuffed grab this.
Speed drain. Oddolis and khan are the main ones that can even use movepeed buffs. Eh.
Girded. The most used badge in game.
Triage. Get autod alot you gain health regen but u dont regen health in combat so i dont k ow how this works.
Jackpot. Barley anyone uses crit runes. So small chances to get health from this.
Star burts/rainbow spree. Good runes.
Bubbly. have a chance not to take damage great
Fireworks. Good team badge.
Snowflake. Fun rune stun urself or others with autos.
Glitter runner. Love this but hate this. More then not u get a negative. 1 pos to 2 cons on this.